Tagged decisions
3,487
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Complaint theme analysis
A public analysis page for the complaint theme policy wording ambiguity, built from the root-cause tagging layer across published Financial Ombudsman decisions.
Page summary
3,487 published decisions tagged policy wording ambiguity, with upheld-rate context, product concentration, firm exposure, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Tagged decisions
3,487
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Upheld rate
43.8%
1,527 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 02 Feb 2026
Tagged decisions
3,487
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Upheld rate
43.8%
1,527 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance (excluding PPI)
1,835 decisions
Leading firm
UK Insurance Limited
148 decisions
3,487 published decisions in the corpus carry the complaint-theme tag policy wording ambiguity. 43.8% of those decisions were upheld, which makes this one of the most useful public “type” slices available in the dataset.
Insurance (excluding PPI) is the product line most often associated with this theme, while UK Insurance Limited is the firm that appears most often alongside it in published decisions.
Policy Wording Ambiguity has enough history in the published decisions to show how complaint pressure has evolved across multiple years, rather than appearing as a one-off issue cluster.
In 2026, policy wording ambiguity appeared in 16 published decisions with an upheld rate of 37.5%.
Insurance (excluding PPI), Payment protection insurance (PPI), Banking and credit, and others are the product areas most associated with this theme in published decisions. That helps explain where this complaint type is most likely to appear in the ombudsman corpus.
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Disp, Section 75 Cca, and others are the most visible precedent signals tied to this complaint theme.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms P to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionAdvantage Insurance Company Limited has already made an offer to pay £150 to settle the complaint and I think this offer is fair in all the circumstances. So, my decision is that Advantage Insurance Company Limited should pay £150 to Mr R if it hasn’t already done so.
View source decisionI’m upholding Mr B’s complaint about Aviva Insurance Limited, and I direct it to put things right in the way I’ve outlined above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 1 March 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 27 February 2026.
View source decision